Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Palazzo della Borsa di Milano

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Palazzo della Borsa di Milano

[edit]

No FoP in Italy, Architect Paolo Mezzanotte died in 1969

A1Cafel (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Remember that FoP is actually de facto allowed in Italy. There was even a banner about it. So no need at all to delete.--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That claims are already depreciated, and the template was already deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Public administrations have the copyright for the works made on their behalf Not exactly. public administrations have the copyright for works "published" on their behalf and buildings aren't "published works." Nor are architects considered "authors" either BTW. So there's really no reason to think the law applies here. Although even if I granted you that it did, it's not really clear if the term expires after 20 years, the rights go back to the "author" after 2, both, or neither happen. Let alone is there even solid judicial evidence that public administrations retain copyrights of works published on their behalf to begin with. Really the evidence points to that not being the case, but again, it's irrelevant anyway because buildings aren't "published works" and architects aren't "authors" in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of the proof that this part of the law is not applied by judges is on you, not on me. The issue if architects should be considered authors or not is irrelevant, since that part applies only to "publications and memories published by academies" for which these cultural instituions keep the copyright for two years. The works for which a 20-year copyright applies are regulated by another sentence, the law is very clear on this subject, there is no ambiguity at all. Friniate (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually the burden of proof is on people who think the files should be kept. All there needs to be on my end is reasonable doubt that the files aren't PD for them to be deleted, which I think is met. It's not my job to make your argument for you in the meantime though. Your the one claiming the part of the law your citing applies to architects. So what's your evidence that it does? Is there any actual legal cases of a city suing someone for using images of a work of architecture they own to substantiate what your saying? Have any legal theorists have any opinions about it? And no I don't think the law is clear about it. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. At least the guideline says "created and published." So you clearly can't separate the two. The thing about the difference in length of terms is also in the same paragraph. So they clearly follow and related to each other. Plus, the last time I checked government organizations can be "cultural institutions." So there's no reason the copyright wouldn't lapse after two years in the case of works created AND published for government bodies. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are mixing two different articles. Article 29 as I said is very clear, and the burden is on you to demonstrate that is not applied by judges. That part about the two years is referred only to "communications and essays" published by academies and cultural institutions (something that a camera di commercio clearly isn't BTW). And yes, the law is very clear on the subject, and we're having a discussion on this topic only because you clearly don't know italian and you have simply misunderstood a sentence on commons' guidelines written in an ambigous way.
Article 11 on the other side has that "and" which is indeed ambiguous. Nevertheless, I thought that here it was agreed that given the acts of italian municipalities which seems to indicate that municipalities hold the copyrights on monuments made on their behalf, that part is indeed applied also to monuments. Friniate (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I am mixing two different articles. Their inherently related to each. We'll have to agree to disagree though since I'm tired of arguing about it. Although I say that just because one person in the Village Pump discussion said municipalities might hold the copyrights on monuments made on their behalf doesn't mean the issue is settled. Nor does the fact that they "might" hold the copyright have anything to do with how long the term lasts for or what happens to it after a certain amount of time has passed. The government can obviously hold the copyright and it still revert back to original creator after 2 years or however long. The same goes for if architects are "authors" and buildings are "published", which I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of. Regardless though, they aren't mutually exclusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, since article 29 clearly states that the copyright that article 11 gives to public administrations etc, lasts 20 years. If the law doesn't say anything, it means that it goes back into PD, otherwise we should think that even medieval buildings are still under someone's copyright only because the law doesn't say anything about what happens to them once the copyright duration has passed. Architects are not "authors", and that is actually an additional proof of the fact that your claim that buldings are "communications or essays" and that a "camera di commercio" is a "cultural institution" is simply wrong. Friniate (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
your claim that buldings are "communications or essays"...is simply wrong. Your the only who's brought up ""communications or essays." So I have zero what your talking about. Let alone how I can be wrong about something I didn't even say to begin with. It's pretty obvious from this and the Village Pump discussion that your unwilling to have these conversations based on what I'm actually saying instead of just repeatedly miss-construing my position like with the claim that I was confusing copyright and non-copyright. So I think I'm done here. I'm not going to waste time talking to someone who just wants to intentionally misrepresent things for their own agenda instead of figure out what the best option is based on what the law and experts say. Like I've asked you for evidence to back up what your saying multiple times now and your only response is to treat my like I have to talk to judges about it or some nonsense. So there's really no point. The closer can see your opinion is totally baseless just by reading through the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the law that talks about "communicatons and essays" in order to define the objects that have the 2-year copyright that then reverts back to the authors, but since you didn't read it obviously you don't know that. I'm willing to have conversations based on the mutual recognition of facts, something that with you has proven impossible. I brought the actual fucking law, but you refused it claiming nonsense as the fact that a bulding is an essay, and then when you didn't know what to answer you decided to go with personal attacks. Bye bye. Friniate (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You refused it claiming nonsense as the fact that a building is an essay No I didn't. Actually I've been doing the exact opposite. My whole claim from the beginning of this that buildings aren't covered by the part of the law that says works (not communications or essays. There's a difference) "published" on behalf of the government entitles them to the copyright. Again, your the only one making this about essays. Although I'll concede that maybe the law doesn't use the word "published", but the guideline does and it's kind of given that's what they are talking about since only published works can be copyrighted. Regardless, I think you need to stop rage posting and re-read what I wrote because you clearly don't understand what I'm saying or you just don't care. You should really chill out and re-read the discussion regardless though because nothing your claiming I said is based on what I wrote. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this same DR you stated that the copyright on this building reverts to the author after 2 years. It was you that said that, not me. As I explanied, to make this claim true you have to say that a building is an essay. There is no other way to make your claim true. So, either your claim is false, or a building is an essay. Pick one. Friniate (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again with miss-construing my position. What is "it still revert back to original creator after 2 years or however long", not that it reverts back to the original after 2 years. There's a difference. And the comment was clearly contingent on the government owning the copyright to begin with, which I don't buy to begin with for reasons that I'm not going to waste everyone's time reiterating for the hundredth time just so you can have more fodder to act like I have a position I don't.
Although now that your here I would like to point something out since you keep citing the law in other DRs. At least going by Google Translate article 11 says "To the State Administrations, to the National Fascist Party, the Provinces and Municipalities have copyright on the works created and published under their name and at their account and expense. The same right applies to private entities that do not pursue objectives of profit, unless otherwise agreed with the authors of the works published, as well as to Academies and other public bodies cultural bodies on the collection of their documents and their publications. Two things there that I think are important, 1. The article uses the word "published" 3 times in reference to all the types of institutions that retain the copyright. There's no reason that "published" in the last two instances would have a different meaning then it does when referring to Provinces and Municipalities. The article is clearly referring to the same thing for all three, the publication of "documents." Something that I think confirms that is the line "The same right applies to private entities". In other words, they all have the same rights. To own the copyright to documents published on their behalf. There's literally nothing else mentioned in the article and it specifies exactly what is covered. So it's clearly not meant to apply to "works" in general, but specifically published documents. I'm sure you'll find a way to weasel out of that, but I still wanted to at least make the reason why I don't think architects and buildings aren't covered regardless. The exact term obviously isn't really relevant if buildings aren't covered to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already explained in detail, in the law the provision that the copyright reverts back to the author is present only for the two-year copyright, not the 20-years one. What you claimed is simply not based on the law, but on a commons' guideline that was badly written, I give you that, and that you misunderstood. But once a person makes you notice that, you should thank him or her, not starting a nonsense discussion full of personal attacks.
On the second point, clearly the internal documents and publications of academies and other cultural public institutions (which BTW are the things for which the article 29 provides the teo-year copyright) are a subset of the "works" mentioned in the previous paragraph, so it doesn't say anything on the question if monuments are included among the "works" or not. It's not a "weasel", it's basic understanding of a written text, something that of course it's not easy to do if you rely on automatic translators. Friniate (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per this incredibly long and convoluted discussion at VP about copyrights of buildings owned by public and non-profit entities. —holly {chat} 20:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Palazzo_della_Borsa_di_Milano&oldid=819759143"